It would depend on how Hillary Clinton got the nomination -- if Obama got more delagates and more votes but Hillary somehow won enough superdelagates, the African-American base would justifiably go nuts and vote 3rd party as a protest or even McCain.  If she won the nomination "legitimately" there would still be a big drop off.

Again, if the Dems want to win, these two repeat JFK/LBJ.  Otherwise they may still win, but if they lose, don't go blaming the rough primary.  

I think not.  This is actually a very silly post.  It would make sense if we were merely talking about a bitter campaign in which Hillary won the most delegates and then the nomination.   But we are not.  We are talking about a situation in which 33 million voters vote and then the party hierarchy says to the voters, "Well, we don't like your outcome so we are picking our own."  

We are not just talking about voters disappointed that their candidate did not win.  We're talking about millions of people infuriated, the political equivalent of a riot or even actual riots.  Never going to happen because millions of Democratic voters would sit out the general election threatening not merely the presidential election but many local elections as well.  The Democratic party professionals surely want to win the White House, but they don't have the slightest reason to wreck the party trying to do it.  Their own seats are more important to them, in addition to which there is no reason to consider Hillary a stronger candidate than Obama.  All the evidence is just to the contrary.  It is the very illegitimacy of the choice of Hillary, based on nothing compelling that might be considered in the interest of the party, that would infuriate so many people.

Bottom line, the leadership cannot just stick it to the rank and file and imagine that all would be forgiven and forgotten by November.  

It's all hypothetical. It depends how she gets the nomination. It's always possible that Obama will self-destruct all on his own. If she's not tied to it, then most will back her.

Now...if she somehow takes the nomination with the superdelegates, they'll probably do more than sit out.  They'll protest and riot...

Like I said in response to Zengerle's previous post, now that it is clear that the primary is over, the pundits are running out of things to say to stir the pot and it is just getting silly.

Let's not forget about Clinton's standing offer to Obama of the No. 2 spot on her ticket... Denied the nomination, is it possible that Obama would turn down the veep job to return to his junior senator from Illinois status? I kinda doubt it. And his followers -- even those who say they'd sooner cut off their  hand than pull the lever  for Hillary -- will find themselves swallowing hard and pulling the lever for Hillary.

If she won the nomination "legitimately" yeah but at this point I don't see how that is possible.

The superdelegates can obviously use whatever justifications they want but I have started to think that popular vote totals are not as good a measurement as I used to. Hillary is trying to say count the vote totals in Florida and Michigan and as a kind of concession don't count the delegates. But in the next breath she is saying that only the winner of the popular vote counts. In that case why have delegates at all? Or even why have superdelegates? Counting the popular vote total effectively disenfranchies all caucus states, which for their own reasons use the caucus system as their own states most effective realization of the popular will. Disagree with it all you want, but to turn around and say all of the caucus states don't count, especially since before the contest started their system was ratified by the DNC and accepted by all of the candidates, is fundamentally wrong.

I am not saying the popular vote total has no justification, in a case where the difference in pledged delegates were very small, then I can see that being a factor, but it isn't in this case.

Because the way the system is designed I think the most legitimacy will be conferred on the winner of the pledged delegate count, with the popular vote total as supplemental, and finally and much further below electibility issues being dead last.

roid, or was it rhub? as I said before, McCain can simply take Condi or Powell and give blacks an excuse to dump Hillary. I know you think neither is qualified, but Condi does have very high favorability ratings in America of 56%, and even though her ratings among blacks is only 38%, 38% would certainly rise, and imagine what would happen if that 38%+ voted for McCain.

How can Hill counter this? Personal attacks would backfire, she can tie her to the war, but McCain will already be tied to it. And as Secretary of State she already holds one of the most powerful and prominent positions in the world, one that is constitutionally in line to the Presidency, attesting to its unique qualification.

And as to her never running before? Please, every appearance will be tightly scripted. And for Carpetbagging Hillary (who is where she is because of who she married) to bring this up can easily backfire.

dkrieger, wishful thinking? what makes you think Michelle Obama would buy into this? I tend to believe she will probably think to hell with Hillary, let her sink or swim on her own and then push for her husband to be a normal husband and father (at least one who can be home more often). And who do you think Obama will want to please more, Hillary or Michelle? Granted, maybe I am wrong, maybe she is coldly calculating and ambitious, but as of not too long ago, she was essentially nobody, this process can't have been pleasant, especially with her having two young children.

Being a junior Senator (with a possible Governorship in the future) ain't too shabby. Hitching his wagon to the Clinton freakshow? Is it really worth it just so he can spend 4 years in the hinterlands (like Hillary will ask his advice on anything) just so he can run in another 4 years (since Hillary will never be reelected).

dkrieger tells the future:

"And [Obama's] followers -- even those who say they'd sooner cut off their  hand than pull the lever  for Hillary -- will find themselves swallowing hard and pulling the lever for Hillary."

Really?

While there will probably not  be a flood of Democratic voters who shun Clinton for McCain there will be enough - joined by voters who might have voted Democratic sans Clinton but simply won't bother to vote at all (I don't know why they should in many states where there aren't high profile state offices or initiatives weighing in the balance - to negatively affect the  presidential contest.

Among the shunners would be myself (it would be the first time in my voting lifetime I pulled the lever for a Republican) who are as much invested in reforming the party as winning the election.

I posted this in another entry, but it seems to fit here, so I'll repost it.

I am a 31 year old AA female, most of my friends are from 28 to 32 years old, but I also of course have family members and older coworkers who have already shown little to no enthusiam for Hilary Clinton.  Just like working-class whites are "bitter" so or these older AA, but unlike them, older AA are more prone to not vote at all if they are not motivated by a candidate.  They just feel that the "system" is too stacked against them so why should they care.  I and most of my friends have been voting since we were 18 and we haven't ever thought of not voting before, but I have had a few friends who have said that they will either not vote if Hilary Clinton is the nominee or they will vote for the down-ballad candidates only.  Whether or not she wins it fairly or not, whenever I just mention that Obama may not get the nomination, my family, co-workers and friends were pissed.

Also, as to Condi Rice, yes she may be AA, and many AA are proud of what she has accomplished, but there is no love lost between the AA community and Condileeza.  Colin Powell is another story, there is much more respect for him than her, even after the "WMD" debacle.

As for me, I can tell you right now that me and my fellow Katrina "refugees" have not forgotten that while people were stranded by the storm Condileeze Rice was shopping for shoes!

If Obama wins more primary votes and more primary/caucus delegates (excluding those of Florida and Michigan), but then, in spite of all of this, the superdelegates decide to make a gift of the nomination to Hillary, well, I wouldn't blame any Obama supporter--black, white, educated, young, affluent or not--for being outraged. Indeed, I would be outraged myself--outraged enough not to vote for HRC in November (I wouldn't vote for McCain either, but would instead, as they say, sit this one out).

And as someone living in her home state, I would also be outraged enough to vote for--and donate to--any decent, rival Dem candidate who goes after Hillary's Senate seat in NY (that is, after she loses to McCain in the general, after she animates the GOP base to insure that McC wins).

Actually, to tell the truth, I'm so disgusted with the way that HRC has run her campaign against Obama, that I'd like to see her lose her Senate seat in NY, no matter what happens from here on out.

I agree that I wouldn't take the VP offer if I was Obama.  If Clinton is nominated and wins, then I would heed the lesson learned from Gore's run for Pres.  No matter what happens, you are forever "tainted" as part of the "Clinton" Adminstration and there are many Republicans who will not look at him twice.  Also, there is no absolute guarantee that Clinton will win against McCain, and definitely no absoulute guarantee that if the Clintons make it back into to White House that there won't be another Clinton scandal to deal with that if Obama was the VP he would be saddles with.

I think McCain would be very smart to campaign visibly and reasonably heavily in black constituencies.

As long as he didn't pander to them with the kind of phony promises Democrats have been getting away with for decades, it wouldn't lose him any votes.

And blacks would have to at least be impressed by the outreach.  It would also differentiated McCain from conventional GOP pols with Independents and conservative Dems.

blackie, McCain-Powell is a brilliant idea.  

I thought for awhile that Powell had lost his cachet because of Iraq.  But, even if there's some residual problem left for him from that, it would affect him a lot more if he were the presidential candidate.  And, even then, I think that's not such a worry anymore.

Condi, I'm less sanguine about.  She's smart, but she doesn't come off as a heavyweight.  Powell you could easily imagine taking over the Oval Office immediately, no prob.  He is used to command, after all.

Condi is also identified much more strongly with Bush than is Powell, who was very much his own man, and had a high profile career long before Bush II was elected.

blackie, very good idea on Powell.

What a silly post.  What White America does not get about Black America is it is just as diverse.   As there are Blue Collar whites, there are blue collar blacks.  As there are Latte drinking urban whites, the same is true for the black community.  As a member of one of the before mentioned groups, I can tell you this.  There are many blacks who are fed up with the Democratic party.  We believe we are treated as the poor blacks who need the democrats to guide us out of our misery.  When George Bush talked about "The soft bigotry of low expectations", we understood.  In many cases, liberalism is not in line with our values.  What keeps us democrats is the fact that we believe the Republican party is racist.  If they ever prove different, it will not be so easy for the dems to get our support.  What this primary is proving to us is we have been right about what Liberals think of us:  As long as we are praising you for fighting for irrelevant things like Affirmative Action, we are fine.  But how dare you think you can run for president.  And you would not be doing this well if not for Affirmative Action.

lamh31, fine, I often mention Colin Powell as well. And if you watch Bush's War on PBS Frontline you will see how he was shafted by the Bush administration, and how he was LIED to by Tenet leading up to his speech in the UN. He was run over by Cheney and Rumsfeld, but being a loyal soldier didn't make his views public. With McCain he will be free to finally present his story, and if not vindicated, understood.

I think Powell would be great for McCain (from a Democrats point of view).  First, legitimizes a black man on the ticket.  Second, Powell won't draw many blacks away from the Dems with Obama at the top of the ticket.  Third, it is always a mistake to have someone on the ticket who has not run for political office before, at least in the age of the soundbite.  It is an experience unlike any other.  Powell would definitely make amateurish mistakes.  Fourth, f/p is the one area where McCain doesn't need to shore himself up with his base.  That makes Powell redundant.  It gets McCain nothing.

For all those reasons, I support Powell for McCain.  Unfortunately, McCain probably has at least one political adviser who knows something.  Hence, it is never going to happen.  Of course, this ticket is a dream for someone with chan's political views.  But as a play in the electoral politics game, well, let's just say chan that you should hold onto your day job.

Will wonders never cease - I agree with Chait for once.  Blacks invariably vote for the Democrat.  Short of a Democrat grabbing his/her crotch and flashing the middle finger at a NAACP gathering, (s)he'll get 90% of their vote.  

Blacks view their race as an identity far more than whites view theirs (if ever).  While whites see themselves as Italians, Russians, Poles, Scots, Protestant, Catholic, etc. blacks don't see themselves in the same manner.  Whites do not vote in such monolithic ways.

The truth is, until blacks start to see themselves in the same way whites view themselves (e.g. as S. Carolinian, teacher, middle-aged, first and black second), they will always feel aggrieved and the victim of racism.

jwl2672,

You are somewhat correct in assuming we see our race as an identity beyond everything else, but it is only because that is how we are viewed by the larger society.  It is also a means of maintaining the very little power we possess.  Katrina was real.  Black people were victims. Due to our history, racisim is something which will always guide our decisions.  Therefore, we will be democrats until republicans show us different.  Or, when we get completely disgusted with the democrat's condenscension.

jwl, umm...blacks don't view themselves that way in Africa. And the reason why they don't view themselves as Tanzanians or Chadians or what all is because they have no idea what part of Africa they come from, a little thing called slavery happened in America.

Maybe when you view blacks as people first and not as a race and be such an arrogant condescending asshole you might see a difference in attitudes, unfortunately for America, America is full of assholes like yourself who never fail to point out their assholery.

roid, Powell for VP if Clinton gets the nod, under Obama I agree. McCain will go with a Republican Governor to balance the ticket.

Jason links to an Economist blog post which says, of me, "Mr Zengerle's colleague, Jon Chait

McCain had conservatives grudgingly accepting him as the GOP standard-bearer, and they're getting more comfortable with him as The Black Radical and The Shrew go at each other. Picking Colin Powell would wipe out a gigantic chunk of that goodwill he's pieced together with those hard-right folks. He's viewed by many of them as the guy who screwed up the Bush Administration's otherwise-flawless plan for peace/dominance in the Middle East. And hell, he practically endorsed Obama a few weeks ago.

McCain is going to have to placate the Right with his veep. Powell ain't going to do it. I'm not even convinced Condi Rice will do it, but she'd be a better pick than Powell (although she will have her own baggage, both unfair stuff and totally fair things like the fact that she has been spectacularly lousy at two very important jobs she's had under Bush).

blackton & roidubouloi-

No matter who he's running against (HRC or BHO), McCain would be wise, strategically, to choose a VP who animates the massive, social conservative/evangelical GOP base, someone like a Huckabee or a Brownback.

As I've said on previous threads (going back over a year now), this has been the pattern in balancing the GOP ticket for the past two or three decades. George H.W. Bush, for instance, chose Quayle for precisely this reason: Danny boy (and his evangelical wife) had christ-cred with the base, something Geoge senior severely lacked.

Reagan and Bush junior were both seen as true believers by the base, so they were free to choose less apparently religious VPs (who then balanced the ticket, making it more palatable to the less-religious, less-wacky wing of the party).

McCain is in something of the same boat that daddy Bush was in when he was the nominee: the base hated George the first, they didn't trust him, they didn't see him as one of them.

And a huge swathe of the GOP base isn't too thrilled now with McCain as the nominee. But if John McC were to choose a true believer (or someone perceived as a true believer) for his VP, it would help light a fire under the base's massive ass, get evanglecial/social conservatives to contribute to--and to work on behalf of--the McCain campaign en masse.

Of course, if Hillary is the nominee, this in itself will incite the GOP base--and in a big way--but having a true believer at the bottom of the GOP ticket would seal the deal, making McCain palatable to the base in a way that he isn't now.

WoodyBombay-

It appears that I was writing my post while you were posting yours. But obviously, I agree: "McCain is going to have to placate the Right with his veep."  I also agree that Powell would further alienate the GOP base, and Condi would be a huge liability: she would only make it all the more obvious that a McCain presidency would be, in large part, Bush III.

I agree with you Joseph and with Woodybombay.  Well said.

Lamh31 - I agree - I haven't forgotten the shoe shopping incident for one second, not to mention Condi's extremely poor performance in both of the jobs she's had under Bush.  I appreciate her dignity and calm, but that's it.  She'd be a sitting duck on McCain's ticket.  I love Colin Powell and would be  thrilled to see him on the ticket, war mess and all, but I doubt Alma has changed her mind about that.

Blackton - I was so disgusted at jwl's idiocy and I appreciate your concise, and much deserved take down.  His/her take reminded me of the old "well, other immigrants fit in, dontcha know" as if black folks are immigrants.  The ignorance/arrogance boggles.

There are many Democrats taking a closer look at McCain right now and don't think he doesn't know it.  

He knows the only way for him to win is by appealing to indepedents and pissed off Dems.  He is hardly the darling of the right and that is what centrists like about him.  But his entire platform has been just plain silly so far and I'd advise him to fire anyone handing him that crap. And get some sleep, cool it with the gaffes - they've been much more hair raising than anything the Dems have gaffed.  Hillary's have been unintentionally hilarious, Obama's caustic, and McCain's?  Ignorant - the worst.

Democrats would be arrogant fools to take the African American vote for granted.  I think the rage at the Clintons has been actually understated.  Hillary is not getting their votes, period. And the more blase people are about them "getting over it" the worse it will be.  No wonder McCain is on his "forgotten people" tour a right now.  He's old, but he's clever. I have a few black friends watching him closely right now.  

Hillary is utterly toast with the vast majority of black voters.  She's just praying that bitter blue collars and old people flock.  Good luck.

I do not care about "electablity." I want an intellegent pragmatic leader. Martin Luther said he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian. In Martin Luther's day the Turks were quite intellegent and pragmatic rulers. They haven't changed much since. My suspicion is that Barack Obama is a closet Evangelical Christian, which would not endear him to most of the TNR readers. George Bush is probably a Christian as he claims but is confused by Social Darwinist Repulblicanism and Christian Communtarianism. This probably why he has trouble communicating any coherent thoughts.  Barack Obama is not confused.

The Republican Party has been winning elections for nearly 30 years now by telling people they do not have to pay for government and that "The Market" will automatically adjust to all possible conditions without painful adjustments by any individuals. George Bush even went to war telling us that there would be no cost or pain. Nearly a trillion dollars and 4,000 American lives later he does not seem to understand any better.

The Democrats have gone along with all of this. There has been no "voice in the wilderness", no Burke crying out for some rationality in public affairs. Even at this late date we are not hearing the hard facts that the issues at hand won't be solved without a lot of pain and a big price tag. I don't think a Democrat could be elected if they were telling the truth. The Republicans are still singing the same song and people are still listening to it. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" [2 Tim 4:3]

I realized why George Soros is a supporter of left wing causes when I read that he never believed in a free market that tended to stability. He understood that an unregulated market is an engine without a governor, that it tends to oscillate in a feedback loop. He got rich in currency speculation using this principle.

We need leadership that tells us what Churchill told his people when he came to office, expect blood, sweat, and tears. There is going to be pain. There is no free lunch. The government is going to have to provide some level of regulation to dampen market oscillations. Government is instituted to be a restrainer of evil. [see Romans 13:1-6]

sd,

It is a sad fact of American political life that anyone who told the truth about our problems and what it will take to solve them could never get elected.  I attribute this to Reagan.  People listened to his economic gibberish ("voodoo economics" as George I so aptly put it), decided they liked the sound of it, and have been willing to live with delusions ever since.  Delusions that the Republican kleptocrats happily cash in for trillions that conveniently fall into their pockets.

I think this is what it must have felt like to live through the decline of the Roman Empire, to be able to see the zenith just a short distance in the past, seemingly still well within grasp, and just watching the society sink helplessly into decadence.  That is the American Republic since the year 2000.